On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
+1 - I already mentioned this option as well. Note that existing Zope
3 applications can at least be made to run if you just let the
proxying code do nothing and return the object itself, I imagine.
They'll run insecurity, but they should run.

I'd rather not have something like this checked in anywhere. I'd rather make it easier and more explicit to control whether proxies are used.

Note that
zope.interface was already ported at least some distance by the
twisted people at Pycon.

Interesting.  Did anything get checked in to the z.o repo?

I could therefore *imagine* focusing on some
speedup work by rewriting bits of code to Java, but I agree with you
that the primary, initial goal should be to get things to work, and
that performance work should be secondary. So perhaps this can be in
an 'optional-if-there-is-time-left' section, and going in with the
assumption that time will not be left.

In particular, I'd prefer to see more of the stack get ported over speedups.


Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to